BoxRec

It appears show will only go on if Larry an McDermott is a title shot for commonwealth titles are good but the fights more important an lomax has been in training so it's a good step up for me too

Totally agree Frankie.

It seems that boxing has gone 'title mad'...........You fighting Lomax and Big larry fighting McDermott are 2 very decent 12 round fights which boxing fans will appreciate. Do we need Commonwealth and Eliminators at every show? Let the fighters show what they can do, regardless of titles

It is a mad way to make a living really. How many weeks have you been in training for your bout? Then all sorts happen a few days before the show. It'd drive me nuts, you've a better constitution than me.

lomax :!: he is a big welter & akward as hell :!: two southpaws colliding

tough fight.

That's such bollocks, isn't it. If the matches stand up titles don't matter. TV wants titles with one hand, but with the other hand it devalues those titles by trying to attach them to already arranged fights which at one stage weren't title-worthy! Arse about face.

Agree 100% Glyn. A good fight is a good fight, end of. Far too much emphasis put on titles. Give me a good Area scrap over a Commonwealth title bout any day.

ok so Chisora has to vacate the Commonwealth belt he only won in his last fight to save a show? Talk about rent-a-title, if a fights good enough, then it's good enough to go ahead title or no title - these kind of antics devalue the belts even further, in no way do they add credibility to them.

Hang on lads, hang on.

If you remember, everyone was sick of WBU bollocks, etc, so the Sky rules about a main event being for a title kicked in and most people were happy.

Unfortunately what's happened as a result is that the Commonwealth belt is now meaningless due to some terrible opponents being sanctioned.

You've also got to see it from Sky's point of view, I think. They put money in, bring Ringside back, move it to Saturday night prime time and they're left with a load of last minute sh1te?

Remember, for 'Sky' read 'Sky subscribers'. There's no way Sky should be shelling out full dollar for this - they should use some of the money left over to buy in an overseas fight, perhaps.

i do think its good that sky encourage the showing of domestic titles, but why bother showing so much of the 'olympians' in 4 rounders (often on ppv) if there are not then prepared to let them headline in a decent non-title fight down the line?

If only Warren kept his paying customers as well informed as Frankie has.

Scottrf wrote:If only Warren kept his paying customers as well informed as Frankie has.

good point, nice one Frankie

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Hang on lads, hang on.

If you remember, everyone was sick of WBU bollocks, etc, so the Sky rules about a main event being for a title kicked in and most people were happy.

Unfortunately what's happened as a result is that the Commonwealth belt is now meaningless due to some terrible opponents being sanctioned.

You've also got to see it from Sky's point of view, I think. They put money in, bring Ringside back, move it to Saturday night prime time and they're left with a load of last minute sh1te?

Remember, for 'Sky' read 'Sky subscribers'. There's no way Sky should be shelling out full dollar for this - they should use some of the money left over to buy in an overseas fight, perhaps.

All good points Ian, we can't have it both ways, we wanted sky to stand up and try and sort out the crap, they are doing that, think they are probably just making Warren pull out all the stops here just to let him know who the boss is. Understand the comments about what difference does a title make to the fight and its true but I think the principle is being made here by Sky, good luck to them.

Perhaps the lesson is that TV will devalue ANY title if it uses it to its own ends.

Glyn Leach wrote:Perhaps the lesson is that TV will devalue ANY title if it uses it to its own ends.

Telly assumed that putting this stipulation meant a guarantee of quality.

As we know, almost all titles are bollocks now.

Telly should have a vetting panel that says 'never mind the title, make the matches and we'll say yes or no'. So the matches would have to be good or no dice.

Mind you - me memory is telling me this is eerily close to another situation a few years back - perhaps Glyn or Ian may remember better than I do:

Danny Williams vs Harry Senior was going to be a Southern-Area title match, then something happened with the show and it ended up being a headliner....with (wait for it).... a suddenly-vacant Commonwealth title up for grabs? (I thought it was a decent scrap for the Area belt and added some glamour to a forgotten title, but TV wanted a "proper" belt on the line).

Can anyone remember the fuller story?

Col/T.M.K



PS: fully agree that the fighters are now doing a better job with their own publicity than the official routes. Fair play Mr Gavin, thanks for the updates.

Yeah, Frankie's been an absolute class act on this forum.

Another blow to the situation is that neither Larry nor Big John were on the list of contenders for the title last issued by the CBC. For those not in the know about this bollix, they do it differently to the likes of the BBBoC and list plenty of contenders and the champ has to defend against one in a certain time period.

The last lot (which these boys are absent from) covers the period up to March 31, 2011.

As TMK suggests, probably won't make any difference though.

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Yeah, Frankie's been an absolute class act on this forum.

Another blow to the situation is that neither Larry nor Big John were on the list of contenders for the title last issued by the CBC. For those not in the know about this bollix, they do it differently to the likes of the BBBoC and list plenty of contenders and the champ has to defend against one in a certain time period.

The last lot (which these boys are absent from) covers the period up to March 31, 2011.

As TMK suggests, probably won't make any difference though.

I doesnt bode well then if neither are on the list of contenders....

Thing is here i would pay to watch Frankie against a good well trained Domestic rival,im pretty sure watching him against some import who i know nothing about is as good.
Who ever said that its good fights that matter not a title attached got it spot on.
Speaking to people in the boxing community and they are a lot more excited by frankie fighting a genuine in form british welter than they are watching a meaningless title fight.
Lets see more of these domestic dust ups that make you think and actualy have to keep an eye on both sides.

I know some of the sky guys come on here and i would much rather watch some good domestic tear ups than a poor fight with a belt attached.

Bit simplistic of all of us, really, when you look at it. The real problem all along was probably TV demanding a title fight every week, irrespective of what the title might be called. However many years down the line it's been realised, again, that a title being at stake is not a guarantee of a quality fight — much the same as Amir Khan vs TBA, David Haye vs TBA is not in itself a guarantee of a PPV worthy fight, but it will be earmarked as a PPV event before an opponent has even been named. TV foists both these superficial guarantees of quality upon the public, who presume that a title or a star gives a fight credibility, and then, when the punters discover otherwise and run off saying 'boxing is shite', TV holds its hands up and says 'not our fault'. It's a vicious circle.

We were all stupid and barking up the wrong tree when we thought the Commonwealth or whatever could be any different to the WBU. All we really wanted were quality matches. And whatever way we go, we don't get enough of them. In fact, titles probably result in us getting less of them because, the British aside, the quality control is negligible. Title tags make it easy for TV to exercise poor quality control, if anything. And that's at the heart of it all — TV has failed to exercise enough quality control for many years. Only TV can change that situation but does it really want to? Isn't it easier to always blame someone else? Always easier to point the finger at someone else rather than look at yourself, isn't it. A nice way of avoiding responsibility.

Bottom line is no matter what the name of the title, TV has allowed promoters to get away with a lot of crap fights for years. So without titles, would there still be a lot of crap fights? If there were, then we would be left with a common denominator — TV and its need to fill its schedules, irrespective of quality and value for money. Vicious circle? Add Catch 22 to that as well.

Glyn Leach wrote:Bit simplistic of all of us, really, when you look at it. The real problem all along was probably TV demanding a title fight every week, irrespective of what the title might be called. However many years down the line it's been realised, again, that a title being at stake is not a guarantee of a quality fight — much the same as Amir Khan vs TBA, David Haye vs TBA is not in itself a guarantee of a PPV worthy fight, but it will be earmarked as a PPV event before an opponent has even been named. TV foists both these superficial guarantees of quality upon the public, who presume that a title or a star gives a fight credibility, and then, when the punters discover otherwise and run off saying 'boxing is shite', TV holds its hands up and says 'not our fault'. It's a vicious circle.

We were all stupid and barking up the wrong tree when we thought the Commonwealth or whatever could be any different to the WBU. All we really wanted were quality matches. And whatever way we go, we don't get enough of them. In fact, titles probably result in us getting less of them because, the British aside, the quality control is negligible. Title tags make it easy for TV to exercise poor quality control, if anything. And that's at the heart of it all — TV has failed to exercise enough quality control for many years. Only TV can change that situation but does it really want to? Isn't it easier to always blame someone else? Always easier to point the finger at someone else rather than look at yourself, isn't it. A nice way of avoiding responsibility.

Bottom line is no matter what the name of the title, TV has allowed promoters to get away with a lot of crap fights for years. So without titles, would there still be a lot of crap fights? If there were, then we would be left with a common denominator — TV and its need to fill its schedules, irrespective of quality and value for money. Vicious circle? Add Catch 22 to that as well.

I blame Ricky Hatton.

freddydoesdallas wrote:

Glyn Leach wrote:Bit simplistic of all of us, really, when you look at it. The real problem all along was probably TV demanding a title fight every week, irrespective of what the title might be called. However many years down the line it's been realised, again, that a title being at stake is not a guarantee of a quality fight — much the same as Amir Khan vs TBA, David Haye vs TBA is not in itself a guarantee of a PPV worthy fight, but it will be earmarked as a PPV event before an opponent has even been named. TV foists both these superficial guarantees of quality upon the public, who presume that a title or a star gives a fight credibility, and then, when the punters discover otherwise and run off saying 'boxing is shite', TV holds its hands up and says 'not our fault'. It's a vicious circle.

We were all stupid and barking up the wrong tree when we thought the Commonwealth or whatever could be any different to the WBU. All we really wanted were quality matches. And whatever way we go, we don't get enough of them. In fact, titles probably result in us getting less of them because, the British aside, the quality control is negligible. Title tags make it easy for TV to exercise poor quality control, if anything. And that's at the heart of it all — TV has failed to exercise enough quality control for many years. Only TV can change that situation but does it really want to? Isn't it easier to always blame someone else? Always easier to point the finger at someone else rather than look at yourself, isn't it. A nice way of avoiding responsibility.

Bottom line is no matter what the name of the title, TV has allowed promoters to get away with a lot of crap fights for years. So without titles, would there still be a lot of crap fights? If there were, then we would be left with a common denominator — TV and its need to fill its schedules, irrespective of quality and value for money. Vicious circle? Add Catch 22 to that as well.

I blame Ricky Hatton.

I blame Ricky Butcher

They're both as bad as each other. Their own popularity has ruined the genre they've left. Eastenders has never been the same since he first left and boxers from the UK now think once they've been on soccer am they can fill a football stadium and are ppv worthy

Freddy, the man who can make sense of anything

Glyn Leach wrote:That's such bollocks, isn't it. If the matches stand up titles don't matter. TV wants titles with one hand, but with the other hand it devalues those titles by trying to attach them to already arranged fights which at one stage weren't title-worthy! Arse about face.

that's the reason fight fans that no up & comer can test themselves against other un beaten fighters , once you lose the tv don't wanna know you . People get their first title shot & ain't ready coz they have had no risky fights on their way up. Ha Ho, keeps me in work tho

both fights are definatley on and ronnie hefron has been brought back to the show.